User talk:NaNa210/sandbox

Peer review

The draft is really good. Excellent proofreading and grammar.Also, the sources are really good. The article flows smoothly and the content is well organized.However, some minor edits could improve the article. For the feeding section, it might me good to link D.norvegica to another page for some information. For the ecology and current threat of dinophysis, maybe the article should explain dinoflagellate. Also, explain binary fision or link it to another page. In general, some links to other page. Finally, for the Dinophysis morphology I do not believe anything is needed, is really well written and all the information is complete. To sum up, this article is really good, well written, well organized, interesting and complete information, and does not need many changes.Cp3105pc (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Me (Peer response): I fixed the grammar issues. I decided to keep the morphology because it is easy to misinterpret the way the dinoflagellate looks like. Also, D. novegica doesnt have much information on it so im not sure if i can like it to a seperate page.

Well done on this draft! You've provided very extensive detail and did a good job of balancing core information about the species of focus and related information about similar species in this genus. A few suggestions: under the Feeding section, you mention that certain species related to D. acuminata prefer one mode of feeding over another, and mention the primary feeding mode of D. rotundata. I'd suggest you mention 1-2 additional related species and their preferred feeding modes to drive this point home. Under the section covering ecology and the current threats of Dinophysis, I was confused about what exactly DSP is until I reached the end of the section. I suggest moving the text at the bottom beginning with "DSP is a particular kind of food poisoning..." and ending with "...the toxins are capable of causing stomach tumours and chronic problems to consumers" up to the top, right after the second sentence. I would also suggest adding in the mode of disease transmission for DSP. I'm assuming it's acquired via shellfish consumption--if so, I'd recommend changing the phrasing about "outbreaks in waters along Europe" to clarify who the primary host of this disease is. I also wasn't sure what you meant by the final sentence in the first paragraph ("speculations of sexual dimorphism...") Are you saying that this species reproduces both asexually and sexually? Finally, in the section for Dinophysis morphology, I notice that you use a lot of really technical scientific jargon like "left sulcal 1st", "LSL", and "thecal plates." From the perspective of the reader, it's a bit daunting and confusing--I think it would be helpful if you briefly translated into layman's terms what part of the anatomy you're referring to. Overall, great draft. Mauramk (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Me (Peer response): I took your advice to explain some of the words and I did those, Although I think thatI will keep some of the information the same. Also, I clarified the sexual dimorphism part of the article. I know the article can be confusing because of some terms, but I will continue to clarify more if i can.

Draft Feedback

Nana, your draft here is excellent. You have chosen good material to add to the current article on this species, your references look good, your writing and organization are very clear, and you have done a great job referencing your references in the body of your writing. I agree with others that linking some of your key terms to relevant Wikipedia pages would be helpful (e.g., "food vacuoles," "mixotroph", "photosynthesis").

For your references, do always list the name of the journal - e.g., Science Direct I believe is a database name, and not a journal name. Another minor suggestion - be sure to always italicize scientific names (e.g., D. acuminata). Also, you probably do not need to say "Dinophysis" in your headers, since the article is on this species; I suggest saying for example "Ecology and Current Threats". And, in the second line of your Ecology section, you say "close knit sisters of;" do you mean to say "the sister species"? Close knit sisters makes it sound like you are talking about individuals, whereas I think you are trying to say that these species are closely related to each other.

Other than that, this looks great, and it looks like you have also gotten very helpful feedback from your peer reviewers. Rhirshorn (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)